The serious transgender bathroom issue discussion

G

Guest

Guest
You have a right of free association. You want that right removed for a segment of the population.

I don't know? Has it happened yet? If not, it will soon enough.
You are making the same argument that gun grabbers make.
No, I'm not. I'm not advocating for anything. I'm simply saying when it happens, there will be a lawsuit against a school for breach of privacy and possibly sexual assault.

 

Sol Rosenberg

Girthy Member
93,113
10,866
Earth
That certainly seems to be the worst case scenario that these types of laws are responsive. How has it played-out when it happened?
I don't know? Has it happened yet? If not, it will soon enough.
So we are enacting laws to address things that could happen, but have not managed to happen over the course of our history? Seems to me like there may be something else motivating this.

 
G

Guest

Guest
Bathrooms and showers are not about "association". Its about taking a shit or a shower with some modicum of privacy and dignity for some. As I said, I don't care. But I think some parents of some young children would care if it was their kid that had to be subjected to it.

Ed, tell you what - stop being your usual argumentative douchefuck self for a minute and answer me this question: at my sailing club we have two shower facilities - male and female. It gets HOT AS FUCK here when out on the water and not showering is really not an option after sailing. We have a very active youth sailing program here and even very young opti kids are using the shower rooms at the same time as the adults. The showers themselves are enclosed and private, but the changing room is not. So there are adults and kids showering and changing at the same time most weekends. How would YOU as a parent of say a 5 year old daughter or even a 13 yr old teen daughter feel about her changing and being naked right next to some adult dude who thinks he's a chick with his dick swinging in your daughter's face as he's drying his ballsack in front of her? That cool with you?

Serious question.

 
G

Guest

Guest
That certainly seems to be the worst case scenario that these types of laws are responsive. How has it played-out when it happened?
I don't know? Has it happened yet? If not, it will soon enough.
So we are enacting laws to address things that could happen, but have not managed to happen over the course of our history? Seems to me like there may be something else motivating this.
Actually, the first salvo was by side who enacted laws was the pro-tranny faction when there was not problem in Charlotte to solve in the first place, but only to address something that might happen. Seems to me like there may be something else motivating this.

 
Last edited:

Sol Rosenberg

Girthy Member
93,113
10,866
Earth
That certainly seems to be the worst case scenario that these types of laws are responsive. How has it played-out when it happened?
I don't know? Has it happened yet? If not, it will soon enough.
So we are enacting laws to address things that could happen, but have not managed to happen over the course of our history? Seems to me like there may be something else motivating this.
Actually, the first salvo was by side who enacted laws was the pro-tranny faction when there was not problem in Charlotte to solve in the first place, but only to address something that might happen. Seems to me like there may be something else motivating this.
I've heard that but I haven't seen a cite to the Ordinance in question. What did it say?

 

austin1972

Super Anarchist
12,472
314
1,
Waste of government time and resources as everyone grandstands for votes and popularity.

0.3% of the population is transgender. Versus- 5% of the population has Alzheimer's. 15% live in poverty. This should not be a priority. We need to allocate financial resources to solving problems that affect the mainstream and not the fringe.
This. There are so many more issues to deal with.

I've taken many a pee with girls in the bathroom. Heck, it used to be a regular thing at Wrigley Field because the girls line would be so long, they'd just start using the guys bathrooms.

I don't recall anything happening.

I bet we've all used a bathroom with someone born of the opposite sex, whether we know it or not.

What are they going to do anyhow? Have package checkers at the doors?

 

Saorsa

Super Anarchist
36,781
422
This is a silly law for those who want to seek attention.

This has not been a problem for the last few millennia since people have apparently not realized that toilets and sexuality are somehow interlinked.

I've yet to see or hear of a problem with transgenders in bathrooms for excretory functions. Now we have a bunch of whiney shits who need to feel special.

It might also be that the ADA 'consulting' business is falling off for attorneys and there is a potential for more marketing and billable hours here.

 

slatfatf

Super Anarchist
8,679
1,049
There was a thread here a few months ago where a transgendered student was insisting on showering in the girls shower, not in a private one. Does anyone know what happened there? I think if both sides were reasonable, that something like what learning_j24 described would be fine, but I think there are activists on both sides which want to make this an issue. Culturally, we are not at a point where it is no big deal to have adult anatomical males showering with pubescent girls, or even adult females unless there is some consensual relationship (obviously, but added for the trolls). We should have enough common sense left to at least acknowledge that. I don't know what the answer is, but if activists on both sides are going to continue pushing their agenda, then we are going to be forced to deal with it, and that is what we are seeing now. Frankly, I don't see it as being bigoted to do as learning_j24 described, yet according to many activists that is a violation of a transgendered person's civil rights. Whether it is 1% of the population or .000005% of the population, there are activists on both sides who are going to insist that we have this discussion.

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
60,844
4,930
De Nile
I think the bathroom rules are just a shit show. I think the Feds are going to ignore the dumbfuckistanis on that and hammer on the real problem, removing from a class of people the right to sue over discrimination.

Is there another class that has preemptively had that right removed? Short dwarfs? Ugly people? Nope. That's where the state overstepped. If it was just who can use a shitter we would just make fun of them over their faux fear. Instead, the took civil liberties away that had existed.

 

Sol Rosenberg

Girthy Member
93,113
10,866
Earth
Here's some information on the Charlotte ordinance in question.

http://charlotteequality.strikingly.com/

It added sex, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital or family status to the non-discrimination ordinance.

I can certainly see why the state would want to protect the rights of bigots to discriminate against those groups. They're different than me.

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
60,844
4,930
De Nile
Here's some information on the Charlotte ordinance in question.

http://charlotteequality.strikingly.com/

It added sex, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital or family status to the non-discrimination ordinance.

I can certainly see why the state would want to protect the rights of bigots to discriminate against those groups. They're different than me.
I think that's where the feds will go as well. The State and the Faux news operatives are yelling "Dude in the girls bathroom! Oh My!" but the courts will take a long look at taking away groups of peoples access to the courts.

 

Sol Rosenberg

Girthy Member
93,113
10,866
Earth
Here's some information on the Charlotte ordinance in question.

http://charlotteequality.strikingly.com/

It added sex, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital or family status to the non-discrimination ordinance.

I can certainly see why the state would want to protect the rights of bigots to discriminate against those groups. They're different than me.
I think that's where the feds will go as well. The State and the Faux news operatives are yelling "Dude in the girls bathroom! Oh My!" but the courts will take a long look at taking away groups of peoples access to the courts.
Yup. And we'll hear the familiar refrain of "Stites Rats!", a worthy sentiment which has been distorted for use by those who would seek to deprive other citizens of the rights the rest of us have.

There are laws against sexual assault already, so the bathroom protection aspect is pure Ministry of Information stuff. This is about taking rights away from a group that doesn't look/think/act like most of us. Ironically, NC is going to end up establishing national precedent, methinks.

So what is the next wedge issue going to be?

 

A guy in the Chesapeake

Super Anarchist
23,965
1,167
Virginia
Here's some information on the Charlotte ordinance in question.

http://charlotteequality.strikingly.com/

It added sex, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital or family status to the non-discrimination ordinance.

I can certainly see why the state would want to protect the rights of bigots to discriminate against those groups. They're different than me.
I think that's where the feds will go as well. The State and the Faux news operatives are yelling "Dude in the girls bathroom! Oh My!" but the courts will take a long look at taking away groups of peoples access to the courts.
For me - THIS issue is absolutely worth fighting over, an I would contend that the LGBT community is correct in doing so. I don't agree that keeping gender confused boys out of the girl's locker room = discrimination, and really think that the two things ought to be considered separately.

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
60,844
4,930
De Nile
Here's some information on the Charlotte ordinance in question.

http://charlotteequality.strikingly.com/

It added sex, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital or family status to the non-discrimination ordinance.

I can certainly see why the state would want to protect the rights of bigots to discriminate against those groups. They're different than me.
I think that's where the feds will go as well. The State and the Faux news operatives are yelling "Dude in the girls bathroom! Oh My!" but the courts will take a long look at taking away groups of peoples access to the courts.
For me - THIS issue is absolutely worth fighting over, an I would contend that the LGBT community is correct in doing so. I don't agree that keeping gender confused boys out of the girl's locker room = discrimination, and really think that the two things ought to be considered separately.
I really do think the bathroom thing can be handled in a one-off.

But the state decided to go much, much further than the bathrooms.

 

A guy in the Chesapeake

Super Anarchist
23,965
1,167
Virginia
Here's some information on the Charlotte ordinance in question.

http://charlotteequality.strikingly.com/

It added sex, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital or family status to the non-discrimination ordinance.

I can certainly see why the state would want to protect the rights of bigots to discriminate against those groups. They're different than me.
I think that's where the feds will go as well. The State and the Faux news operatives are yelling "Dude in the girls bathroom! Oh My!" but the courts will take a long look at taking away groups of peoples access to the courts.
For me - THIS issue is absolutely worth fighting over, an I would contend that the LGBT community is correct in doing so. I don't agree that keeping gender confused boys out of the girl's locker room = discrimination, and really think that the two things ought to be considered separately.
I really do think the bathroom thing can be handled in a one-off.

But the state decided to go much, much further than the bathrooms.
I would agree that it *should* be able to be handled as a one off.

Read the article I posted a few up - the problem was that parents of a gender confused kid weren't satisfied with the local solution, and wanted to force their son who identifies as a daughter's acceptance in ALL the girl's facilities at school. It is specifically this expectancy of special dispensation on the part of every other kid and parent in the school that I think is wrong.

NC was wrong to prevent civil redress in courts.

 

Sol Rosenberg

Girthy Member
93,113
10,866
Earth
Here's some information on the Charlotte ordinance in question.

http://charlotteequality.strikingly.com/

It added sex, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital or family status to the non-discrimination ordinance.

I can certainly see why the state would want to protect the rights of bigots to discriminate against those groups. They're different than me.
I think that's where the feds will go as well. The State and the Faux news operatives are yelling "Dude in the girls bathroom! Oh My!" but the courts will take a long look at taking away groups of peoples access to the courts.
For me - THIS issue is absolutely worth fighting over, an I would contend that the LGBT community is correct in doing so. I don't agree that keeping gender confused boys out of the girl's locker room = discrimination, and really think that the two things ought to be considered separately.
I really do think the bathroom thing can be handled in a one-off.
But the state decided to go much, much further than the bathrooms.
I would agree that it *should* be able to be handled as a one off.

Read the article I posted a few up - the problem was that parents of a gender confused kid weren't satisfied with the local solution, and wanted to force their son who identifies as a daughter's acceptance in ALL the girl's facilities at school. It is specifically this expectancy of special dispensation on the part of every other kid and parent in the school that I think is wrong.

NC was wrong to prevent civil redress in courts.
That link indicates that the Dept of Education rejected the Separate but Equal solution (for a number of reasons), not the child's parents. The story indicates that the case was brought by other parents, not the parents of the child in question.
The theme that floats to the surface of that bowl and this one seems to be the assumption that gender and sexual identity are the same. For those of us seemingly in the majority on those things, I reckon it's easy to see it that way. My understanding is that for those living through that situation, it isn't so simple.

 
Top